but we see in these scholarly tastes and habits which do not seclude aman from the duties of real life and useful citizenship the onlysafeguard against the evils which the rapid heaping-up of wealth issure to bring with it.

We do not always agree with Mr. Norton in his estimate of thecomparative merit of different artists. We think he sometimes makes Mr.Ruskin's mistake of attributing to positive religious sentiment what israther to be ascribed to the negative influence of circumstances anddate. We cannot help thinking that the mere arrangement of theirfigures by such painters as Cima da Conegliano and Francesco Francia,the architectural regularity of their disposition, the sculpturesquedignity of their attitudes, and the consequent impression ofsimplicity and repose which they convey, have much to do with thereligious effect they produce on the mind, as contrasted with the moredramatic and picturesque conceptions of later artists. When we look atJohn Bellino's "Gods come down to taste the Fruits of the Earth," wecannot think him essentially a more religious man than his great pupilwho painted that truly divine countenance of Christ in "TheTribute-Money." At the same time we go along with Mr. Norton heartily,where, in the concluding pages of his book, with equal learning andeloquence, he points out the causes and traces the progress of themoral and artistic decline which came over Italy in the sixteenthcentury, and whose effect made the seventeenth almost a desert. This isone of the most striking passages in the volume, and the lesson of itis brought home to us with a force and fervor worthy of the theme. Italso affords a good type of the quiet vigor of thought and the highmoral purpose which are characteristic of the author.

Since the famous Battle of the Books in St. James's Library, noliterary controversy has been more sharply waged than that between theadherents of the rival Dictionaries of Doctors Worcester and Webster.The attack was begun thirty years ago, by Dr. Webster's publishers,when Dr. Worcester's "Comprehensive Dictionary" first appeared inprint. On the publication of his "Universal and Critical Dictionary,"in 1846, it was renewed, and, not to speak of occasional skirmishesduring the interval, the appearance of Dr. Worcester's enlarged andfinished work brought matters to the crisis of a pitched battle.

From this long conflict Dr. Worcester has unquestionably come offvictorious. Dr. Webster seemed to assume that he had a kind of monopolyin the English language, and that whoever ventured to compile adictionary was guilty of infringing his patent-right. He drew up a listof words, and triumphantly asked Dr. Worcester where he had found them,unless in his two quartos of 1828. Dr. Worcester replied by showingthat most of the words were to be found in previous Englishdictionaries, and added, with sly humor, that he freely acknowledgedDr. Webster's exclusive property in the word "bridegoom," and otherslike it, which would be sought for vainly in any volumes but his own.Dr. Webster's attack was as unfair as the result of it was unfortunatefor himself.

We have several reasons, which seem to us sufficient, for preferringDr. Worcester's Dictionary; but we are not, on that account, disposedto underrate the remarkable merits of its rival. Dr. Webster was a manof vigorous mind, and endowed with a genuine faculty of independentthinking. He has hardly received justice at the hands of hiscountrymen, a large portion of whom have too hastily taken a fewobstinate whimsies as the measure of his powers. Utterly fanciful asare many of his etymologies, we should be false to our duty as critics,if we did not acknowledge that Dr. Webster possessed in very largemeasure the chief qualities which go to the making of a greatphilologist. The very tendency to theorize, which led him to adoptthose oddities of spelling by which he may be said to be chiefly known,united as it was to an understanding of uncommon breadth and clearness,would under more favorable auspices have given him a very eminent placeamong the philosophic students of language. His great mistake was inattempting to force his peculiar notions upon the world in hisDictionary, instead of confining them to his Preface, or putting themforward tentatively in a separate treatise. The importance which heattached to these trifles ought to have given him a hint that othersmight be as obstinate on the other side, and that the prejudices oftaste have much tougher roots than those of opinion. We are inclined tothink that many of the changes proposed by Dr. Webster will be adoptedin the course of time. But it is a matter of little consequence, andthe progress of such reforms is slow. Already two hundred years ago,James Howel (the author of Charles Lamb's favorite "EpistolaeHo-Elianae") advocated similar reforms, and, as far as the printerswould let him, carried them out in practice. "The printer hath not binso careful as he should have bin," he complains. He especially condemnsthe superfluous letters in many of our words, choosing to write _don_,_com_, and _som_, rather than _done_, _come_, and _some_. "Moreover,"he says, "those words that have the Latin for their original, theauthor prefers that orthography rather than the French, whereby diversletters are spar'd: as _Physic, Logic, Afric_, not _Physique, Logique,Afrique; favor, honor, labor_, not _favour, honour, labour_, and verymany more; as also he omits the Dutch _k_ in most words; here you shallread _peeple_, not _pe-ople_, _tresure_, not _tre-asure_, _toung_, not_ton-gue_, &c.; _Parlement_, not _Parliament_; _busines, witnes,sicknes_, not _businesse, witnesse, sicknesse_; _star, war, far_, not_starre, warre, farre_; and multitudes of such words, wherein the twolast letters may well be spar'd. Here you shall also read _pity, piety,witty_, not _piti-e, pieti-e, witti-e_, as strangers at first sightpronounce them, and abundance of such like words."

Howel gives a weak reason for making the changes he proposes, namely,that the language will thereby be simplified to foreigners. He hints atthe true one when he says that "we do not speak as we write." Dr.Webster also, speaking of certain words ending in _our_, says, "Whatmotive could induce them to write these words, and _errour, honour,favour, inferiour_, &c., in this manner, following neither the Latinnor the French, I cannot conceive." Had Dr. Webster's knowledge of thewritten English language been as great as it undoubtedly was of itslinguistic relations, he would have seen that the _spelling_ followedthe _accent_. The third verse of the Prologue to the "Canterbury Tales"would have satisfied him:--

"And bathed every root in such licour";

and a little farther on,--

"Or swinken with his houdes and laboure."

In this respect the spelling of our older writers, where it can bedepended on, and especially of reformers like Howel, is of value, asthrowing some light on the question, how long the Norman pronunciationlingered in England. Warner, for instance, in his "Albion's England,"spells _creator_ and _creature_ as they are spelt now, but gives theFrench accent to both; and we are inclined to think that the charge ofspeaking "right Chaucer," brought against the courtiers of QueenElizabeth, referred rather to accent than diction.

The very title of Dr. Webster's Dictionary indicates a radicalmisapprehension as to the nature and office of such a work. He callsthe result of his labors an "_American_ Dictionary of the EnglishLanguage," as if provincialism were a merit. He evidently thought thatthe business of a lexicographer was to _regulate_, not to _record_.Sometimes also his zeal as an etymologist misled him, as in his famousattempt to make the word _bridegroom_ more conformable to its supposedAnglo-Saxon root and its modern Teutonic congeners. It never occurredto him that we were still as far as ever from the goal, and that itwould be quite as inconvenient to explain that the termination _goom_was a derivation from the Anglo-Saxon _guma_ as that it was acorruption of it; the point to be gained being, after all, that weshould be able to find out the meaning of the English word_bridegroom_, having no pressing need of _guma_ for conversationalpurposes. We have spoken of this word only because we have heard itbrought up against Dr. Webster as often as anything else, and becausethe disproportionate antipathy produced by this and a few similaroddities shows, that, the primary object of all writing being the clearconveyance of meaning, and not only so, but its conveyance in the mostwinning way, a writer blunders who wilfully estranges the reader's eyeor jars upon its habitual associations, and that a lexicographerblunders still more desperately, who, upon system, teaches to offend inthat kind. And it is amusing in respect to this very word _bridegoom_,that the whimsey is not Dr. Webster's own, but that the bee was putinto his bonnet by Horne Tooke.

Webster in these matters was a bit of a Hotspur. He thought to dealwith language as the vehement Percy would have done with the Trent. Thesmug and silver stream was to be allowed no more wilful windings, butto run

"In a new channel fair and evenly."

He found an equally hot-headed Glendower, wherever there was aneducated man, ready with the answer,--

"Not wind? it shall; it must; you see it doth."

"You see _it doth_" is an argument whose force no theorist ever takesinto his reckoning.

We said that the title "American Dictionary of the English Language"was an absurdity. Fancy a "Cuban Dictionary of the Spanish Language."It would be of value only to the comparative philologist, curious inthe changes of meaning, pronunciation, and the like, whichcircumstances are always bringing about in languages subjected to newconditions of life and climate. But we must not forget to saythat the title chosen by Dr. Webster conveyed also a meaningcreditable to his spirit and judgment. He always stoutly maintained theright of English as spoken in America to all the privileges of a livinglanguage. In opposition to the purists who would have clasped thelanguage forever within the covers of Johnson, he insisted on thenecessity of coining new words or adapting old ones to express newthings and new relations. It is many years since we read his "Remarks"(if that was the title) on Pickering's "Vocabulary," and in answer tothe rather supercilious criticisms on himself in the "Anthology"; butthe impression left on our mind by that pamphlet is one of greatrespect for the good sense, acuteness, and courage of its author. Andof his Dictionary it may safely be said, that, with all its mistakes,no work of the kind had then appeared so learned and so comprehensive.It may be doubted if any living language possessed at that time adictionary, or one, at least, the work of a single man, in all respectsits equal.

But etymologies are not the most important part of a good workingdictionary, the intention of which is not to inform readers and writerswhat a word may have meant before the Dispersion, but what it meansnow. The pedigree of an adjective or substantive is of littleconsequence to ninety-nine men in a hundred, and the writers who havewielded our mother-tongue with the greatest mastery have been men whoknew what words had most meaning to their neighbors and acquaintances,and did not stay their pens to ask what ideas the radicals of thosewords may possibly have conveyed to the mind of a bricklayer going upfrom Padanaram to seek work on the Tower of Babel. A thoroughly goodetymological dictionary of English is yet to seek; and even if weshould ever get one, it will be for students, and not for the laity.Nor is it the primary object of a common dictionary to trace thehistory of the language. Of great interest and importance to scholars,it is of comparatively little to Smith and Brown and their children atthe public school. It is a work apart, which we hope to seeaccomplished by the London Philological Society in a manner worthy ofcomparison with what has been partly done for German by the brothersGrimm,--alas that the illustrious duality should have been broken bydeath! A lexicon of that kind should be an index to all the moreeminent books in the language; but we do not hold this to be the officeof a dictionary for daily reference. A dictionary that should embraceevery unusual word, every new compound, every metaphorical turn ofmeaning, to be found in our great writers, would be a compendium of thegenius of our authors rather than of our language; and a lexicographerwho rakes the books of second and third-rate men for out-of-the-wayphrases is doing us no favor. A dictionary is not a drag-net to bringup for us the broken pots and dead kittens, the sewerage of speech, aswell as its living fishes. Nor do we think it a fair test of such awork, that one should seek in it for every odd word that may havetickled his fancy in a favorite author. Like most middle-aged readers,we have our specially private volumes. One of these--but we will notbetray the secret of our loves--contains some rare words, such as theGallicism _mistresse-piece_, and the delightful hybrid _pundonnore_ fortrifling points-of-honor; yet we by no means complain that we can findneither of them in Worcester, and only the former (with a ludicrouslymistaken definition) in Webster.

A conclusive reason with us for preferring Dr. Worcester's Dictionaryis, that its author has properly understood his functions, and hasaimed to give us a true view of English as it is, and not as he himselfmay have wished it should be or thought it ought to he. Its etymologiesare sufficient for the ordinary reader,--sometimes superfluously full,as where the same word is given over and over again in cognatelanguages. We do not see the use, under the word PLAIN, of taking uproom with a list like the following: "L. _planus;_ It. _piano;_ Sp._piano;_ Fr. _plain._" Not content with this, Dr. Worcester gives itonce more under PLAN: "L. _planus_, flat; It. _piano_, a plan; Sp._piano;_ Fr. _plan._--Dut., Ger., Dan., and Sw. _plan._" Even yet wehave not done with it, for under PLANE we find "L. _planus;_ It._piano;_ Sp._plano_, Fr. _plan._" One would think this rather a PolyglotLexicon than an English Dictionary. It seems to us that no Romanicderivative of the Latin root should he given, unless to show that theword has come into English by that channel. And so of the Teutoniclanguages. If we have Danish, Swedish, German, and Dutch, why notScotch, Icelandic, Frisic, Swiss, and every other conceivable dialecticvariety?

Another fault of superfluousness we find in the number of compoundedwords, where the meaning is obvious,--such, for instance, as are formedwith the adverb out, which the genius of the language permits withoutlimit in the case of verbs. Dr. Worcester gives us, among manyothers,--

"OUT-BABBLE, _v. a._ To surpass in Idle prattle; to exceed in babbling._Milton._"

"OUT-BELLOW, _v. a._ To bellow more or louder than; to exceed orsurpass in bellowing. _Bp. Hall._"

"OUT-BLEAT, _v. a._ To bleat more than; to exceed in bleating. _Bp.Hall_."

Similar words occur at frequent intervals through nine columns. Dr.Webster is equally relentless, (even roping in a few estrays in hisAppendix,) and we hardly know which has out-worded the other. We weresurprised to find in neither the useful and legitimate substantive formof _outgo_, as the opposite of _income_. This superfluousness (unlesswe apply Voltaire's saying, "_Le superflu, chose bien necessaire_" todictionaries also) is the result, we suppose, of the rivalry ofpublishers, who have done their best to persuade the public thatnumerosity is the chief excellence in works of this kind, and thatwhoever buys their particular quarto may be sure of an honestpennyworth and of owning a thousand or two more words than his lessjudicious neighbors. In this way a false standard is manufactured, towhich the lexicographer must conform, if he would have a remunerativesale for his book. He accordingly explores every lane and _impasse_ inthe purlieus of Grub Street, and pounces on a new word as a naturalistwould on a new bug,--the stranger and uglier, the better. We regretthat this kind of rivalry has been forced on Dr. Worcester; but he isso thorough, patient, and conscientious, that he leaves little behindhim for the gleaner. We confess that the amplitude of his research hassurprised us, highly as we were prepared to rate him in this respectby our familiarity with his former works. We have subjected his Dictionaryto a pretty severe test. From the time of its publication we have madea point of seeking in it every unusual word, old or new, that we met within our reading. We have been disappointed in hardly a single instance, andwe are not acquainted with any other dictionary of which we could say asmuch.

An attempt has been made to damage Dr. Worcester's work by a partialcomparison of his definitions with those of Dr. Webster; and here,again, the assumption has been, that _number_ was of more importancethan concise completeness. In the case of a quarto dictionary, wesuppose an honest reviewer may confess that he has not read through thesubject of his criticism. We have opened Dr. Webster's volume atrandom, and have found some of his definitions as extraordinarilyinaccurate as many of his etymologies. They quite justify a_double-entendre_ of Daniel Webster's, which we heard him utter manyyears ago in court. He had forced such a meaning upon some word in apaper connected with the case on trial, that the opposing counselinterrupted him to ask in what dictionary he found the word so defined.He silenced his questioner instantly with a happy play upon the namecommon to himself and the lexicographer: "In _Webster's_ Dictionary,Sir!" We find in Webster, for example, the following definition of aword as to whose meaning he could have been set right by anycoasting-skipper that sailed out of New Haven:--

"AMID-SHIPS; _in marine language_, the middle of a ship with regard toher length and breadth." Now, when one ship runs into another at seaand strikes her _amid-ships_, how is she to contrive to accomplish itso as to satisfy the requirements of this definition? Or if a sailor issaid to be standing amidships, must he be planted precisely in what hewould probably agree with Dr. Webster in spelling the _center_ of themain-hatch? Dr. Worcester, quoting Falconer, is of course right.

We give another of Dr. Webster's definitions, which caught our eye inlooking over his array of words compounded with _out_. "OUTWARD-BOUND;proceeding from a port or country." Now Dr. Webster does not tell hisreaders that the term is exclusively applicable to vessels; and weshould like to know whence a vessel is likely to proceed, unless from aport,--and where ports are commonly situated, unless in countries? Ifan American ship be "proceeding from" the port of Liverpool to someport in the United States, how soon does she enter on whatlexicographers call "the state of being" homeward-bound? The narrowlimits to which Dr. Webster confines the word would not extend beyondthe jaws of the harbor from which the ship is sailing. Dr. Worcester'sdefinition is, "OUTWARD-BOUND. (_Naut_.) Bound outward or to foreignparts. _Crabb_."

Under the word MORESQUE we find in Webster the following definition: "Aspecies of painting or carving done after the Moorish manner,consisting of _grotesque_ pieces and compartments _promiscuouslyinterspersed_; arabesque. _Gwilt_." (The Italics are our own.) We havenot Mr. Gwilt's Encyclopaedia at hand; but if this be a fairrepresentation of one of its definitions, it is a very untrustworthyauthority. The last term to be applied to arabesque-work is_grotesque_, or _promiscuously interspersed_; and the description heregiven leaves out the most beautiful kind of arabesque, namely, theinlaid work of geometrical figures in colored marbles, in which theArabs far surpassed the older _opus Alexandrinum_. Nothing could beless grotesque, less promiscuously interspersed, or more beautiful inits harmonious variety, than the work of this kind in the famous_Capella Reale_ at Palermo.

Dr. Webster defines NIGHT-PIECE as "a piece of painting so colored asto be supposed seen by candle-light,"--a description which we suspectwould have somewhat puzzled Gherardo della Notte.

We might give other instances, had we time and space; but our object isnot to depreciate Webster, but only to show that the claim set up forhim of superior exactness in definition is altogether gratuitous. Wehave found no inaccuracies comparable with these in Dr. Worcester'sDictionary, which we tried in precisely the same way, by opening ithere and there at random. Moreover, looking at his work, notabsolutely, but in comparison with Dr. Webster's, (as we are challengedto do,) we cannot leave out of view that the former is a first edition,while the latter has had the advantage of repeated revisions.

Under the word MAGDALEN, we find Webster superior to Worcester. UnderULAN, we find them both wrong. Dr. Worcester says it means "a speciesof militia among the modern Tartars"; and Dr. Webster, "a certaindescription of militia among the modern Tartars." In any Polishdictionary they would have found the word defined as meaning "lancer,"and the Uhlans in the Austrian army can hardly be described as modernTartar militia. Both Dictionaries give SLAW, and neither explains itrightly. The word does not properly belong in an English dictionary,unless as an American provincialism of very narrow range. As such, itwill be found, properly defined, in Mr. Bartlett's excellentVocabulary. Lexicographers who so often cite the Dutch equivalents ofEnglish words should own Dutch dictionaries. Under IMAGINATION, a goodkind of test-word, we find Worcester much superior to Webster,especially in illustrative citations.

We have been astonished by some instances of slovenly writing to befound here and there in Dr. Webster's Dictionary, because he wascapable of writing pure and vigorous English. Under MAGAZINE (and bythe way, Dr. Webster's definition omits altogether the metaphoricalsense of the word) we read that "The first publication of this bind inEngland was the _Gentleman's Magazine_, which first appeared in 1731,under the name of _Sylvanus Urban_, by Edward Cave, and which is stillcontinued." A reader who knew nothing about the facts would be puzzledto say what the name of the new periodical really was, whether_Gentleman's Magazine_ or _Sylvanus Urban_; and a reader who knewlittle about English would be led to think that "appeared by" wasequivalent to "was commenced by," unless, indeed, he came to theconclusion that its apparition took place in the neighborhood of somecavern known by the name of Edward.

We have only a word to say as to the _illustrations_, as they arecalled, a mistaken profuseness in which disfigures both Dictionaries,another evil result of bookselling competition. The greater part ofthem, especially those in Webster, are fitter for a child's scrap-bookthan for a volume intended to go into a student's library. Suchadjuncts seem to us allowable only, if at all, somewhat as they wereintroduced by Blunt in his "Glossographia," to make terms of heraldrymore easily comprehensible. They might be admitted to save trouble indescribing geometrical figures, or in explaining certain of the morefrequently occurring terms in architecture and mechanics, but beyondthis they are childish. The publishers of Webster give us all thecoats-of-arms of the States of the American Union, among other equallyimpertinent woodcuts. We enter a protest against the whole thing, as anequally unfair imputation on the taste and the standard of judgment ofintelligent Americans. If we must have illustrations, let them be strictlyso, and not primer-pictures. Both Dictionaries give us the figure of acrossbow, for instance, as if there could be anywhere a boy of ten yearsold who did not know the implement, at least under its other name of_bow-gun_. Neither cut would give the slightest notion of the thing asa weapon, nor of the mode in which it was wound up and let off. Dr.Worcester says that it was intended "for shooting _arrows_," which is notstrictly correct, since the proper name of the missile it dischargedwas _bolt_,--something very unlike the shaft used by ordinary bowmen.

We believe Dr. Worcester's Dictionary to be the most complete andaccurate of any hitherto published. He intrudes no theories of his ownas to pronunciation or orthography, but cites the opinions of the bestauthorities, and briefly adds his own where there is occasion. He is nobigot for the present spelling of certain classes of words, but givesthem, as he should do, in the way they are written by educated men, atthe same time expressing his belief that the drift of the language istoward a change, wherever he thinks such to be the case. We reprobate,in the name of literary decency, the methods which have been employedto give an unfair impression of his work, as if it had been compiledmerely to supplant Webster, and as if the whole matter were a questionof blind partisanship and prejudice. The assigning of such motives asthese, even by implication, to such men, among many others, as Mr.Marsh and Mr. Bryant, both of whom have expressed themselves in favorof the new Dictionary, is an insult to American letters. Mr. Marsh, bythe extent of his learning, is probably better qualified than any otherman in America to pronounce judgment in such a case; and Mr. Bryant hasnot left it doubtful that he knows what pure and vigorous English is,whether in verse or prose, or that he could not employ it except tomaintain a well-grounded conviction.

Apart from more general considerations, there are several reasons whichwould induce us to prefer Dr. Worcester's Dictionary. It has the greatadvantage, not only that it is constructed on sounder principles, as itseems to us, but that it is the latest. Stereotyping is an unfortunateinvention, when it tends to perpetuate error or incompleteness, andalready the Appendix of added words in Webster amounts to eighty pages.For all the words it contains, accordingly, the reader is put to doublepains: he must first search the main body of the work, and then thesupplement. Again, in Worcester, the synonymes are given, each underits proper head, in the main work; in Webster they form a separatetreatise. One other advantage of Worcester would be conclusive with us,even were other things equal,--and that is the size of the type, andthe greater clearness of the page, owing to the freshness of thestereotype-plates.

We know the inadequacy of such hand-to-mouth criticism as that of amonthly reviewer must be upon works demanding so minute an examinationas a dictionary deserves. For ourselves, we should wish to own bothWebster and Worcester, but, if we could possess only one, we shouldchoose the latter. It is a monument to the industry, judgment, andaccuracy of the author, of which he may well be proud.

_Elements of Mechanics, for the Use of Colleges, Academies, and HighSchools._ By WILLIAM G. PECK, Professor of Mathematics, ColumbiaCollege. New York: A.S. Barnes & Burr. 1859.

Text-books on Mechanics are of three sorts. Many teachers,school-committees, and parents wish to add a taste of Mechanics to thesmatterings of twenty or thirty different subjects which constitute"liberal education," as understood in American high schools andcolleges. For this purpose it is of the first importance that thetext-book should be brief, for the time to be devoted to it is veryshort; secondly, it must divest the subject of every perplexity anddifficulty, that it may be readily understood by all young persons,though of small capacity and less application. Such a text-book cancontain nothing beyond the statement, without proof, of the moreimportant principles, illustrated by familiar examples, and simpleexplanations of the commonest phenomena of motion, and of the machinesand mechanical forces used in the arts. To a few it seems that morelight comes into a room through two or three broad windows, though theybe all on one side, than through fifty bull's-eyes, scattered on everywall. But the many prefer bull's-eyes,--fifty narrow, distortedglimpses in as many directions, rather than a broad, clear view of theheavens and the earth in one direction. Hence superficial, scantytext-books on science are the only ones which are popular and salable.

The thorough study of Mechanics is, or should be, an essential part ofthe training of an architect, an engineer, or a machinist; and thereare several text-books, like Weisbach's Mechanics and Engineering,intended for students preparing for any of these professions, which arecomplete mathematical treatises upon the subject. Such text-books areinvaluable; they become standard works, and win for their authors awell-deserved reputation.

Professor Peck's book belongs to neither of the two classes oftext-books indicated, but to a class intermediate between the two. Itis at once too good, too difficult a book for general, popular use, andtoo incomplete for the purposes of the professional student. As itassumes that the student is already acquainted with the elements ofAlgebra, Trigonometry, Analytic Geometry, and the Calculus, thesuccessful use of this text-book in the general classes of any academyor college will be good evidence that the Mathematics are there taughtmore thoroughly than is usual in this country. In few American collegesis the study of the Calculus required of all students. In preparing ascientific text-book of this sort, originality is neither aimed at norrequired. A judicious selection of materials, correct translation fromthe excellent French and German hand-books, with such changes in thenotation as will better adapt it for American use, and a clear, logicalarrangement are the chief merits of such a treatise; and these aremerits which seldom gain much praise, though their absence would exposethe author to censure. The definitions of Professor Peck's book areexact and concise, every proposition is rigidly demonstrated, and theillustrations and descriptions are brief, pointed, and intelligible.Professor Peck says in the Preface, that the book was prepared "tosupply a want felt by the author when engaged in teaching NaturalPhilosophy to college classes"; but surely a teacher who prepares atext-book for his own classes must need a double share of patience andzeal. Every error which the book contains will be exposed, and theauthor will have ample opportunity to repent of all the inaccuracieswhich may have crept into his work. Again, the instructor who uses hisown text-book encounters, besides the inevitable monotony of teachingthe same subject year after year, the additional weariness of findingin the pages of his text-book no mind but his own, which he has read sooften and with so little satisfaction. Even in teaching Mechanics,there is no exception to the general rule, that two heads are betterthan one.

All "famous ballads" are so close to Nature in their conceptions,emotions, incidents, and expressions, that it seems hardly possible tochange their form without losing their soul. The present little volumeproves that they may be turned into prose stories for children, and yetpreserve much of the vitality of their sentiment and the interest oftheir narrative. Grace Greenwood, well known for her previous successesin writing works for the young, has contrived in this, her mostdifficult task, to combine simplicity with energy and richness ofdiction, and to present the events and characters of the Ballads in theform best calculated to fill the youthful imagination and kindle theyouthful love of action and adventure. Among the subjects are PatientGriselda, The King of France's Daughter, Chevy Chase, The Beggar'sDaughter of Bednall Green, Sir Patrick Spens, and Auld Robin Gray. Muchof the author's success in giving prose versions of these, withoutmaking them prosaic, is due to the intense admiration she evidentlyfeels for the originals. Among American children's books, this volumedeserves a high place.

* * * * *

_Mary Staunton; or the Pupils of Marvel Hall_. By the Author of"Portraits of, my Married Friends." New York: D. Appleton & Co.

This story has a practical aim, the exposure of the faults offashionable boarding-schools. "A good plot, and full of expectation,"as Hotspur said; but the author had not the ability to execute thedesign. The satire and denunciation are both weak, and are not relievedby the introduction of a very silly and threadbare love-story.

* * * * *

_Poems_. By the Author of "John Halifax," "A Life for a Life," etc.Boston: Ticknor & Fields.

Some of the verses in this little volume are quite pretty, especiallythose entitled, "By the Alma River," "The Night before the Mowing," "MyChristian Name," and "My Love Annie." Miss Muloch is not able to takeany high rank as a poetess, and very sensibly does not try.

Elements of Mechanics: For the Use of Colleges, Academies, and HighSchools. By William G. Peck, M. A,, Professor of Mathematics, ColumbiaCollege. New York. Barnes & Burr. 12mo. pp. 338. $1.50.

The Human Voice: its Right Management in Speaking, Reading, andDebating, including the Principles of True Eloquence; together with theFunctions of the Vocal Organs,--the Motion of the Letters of theAlphabet,--the Cultivation of the Ear,--the Disorders of the Vocal andArticulating Organs,--Origin and Construction of the EnglishLanguage.--Proper Methods of Delivery,--Remedial Effects of Reading andSpeaking, etc. By the Rev. W. W. Cazalet, A. M., Cantab. New York.Fowler & Wells. 16mo. paper, pp. 46. 10 cts.

American Normal Schools: their Theory, their Workings, and theirResults, as embodied in the Proceedings of the First Annual Conventionof the American Normal School Association, held at Trenton, New Jersey,August 19th and 20th, 1859. New York. Barnes & Burr. 8vo. pp. 113.$1.25.

History of the Early Church, from the First Preaching of the Gospel, tothe Council of Nicea. For the Use of Young Persons. By the Author of"Amy Herbert." New York. Appleton & Co. 16mo. pp. x., 383. 60 cts.

Our Bible Chronology, Historic and Prophetic, Critically Examined andDemonstrated, and Harmonized with the Chronology of Profane Writers:Embracing an Examination and Refutation of the Theories of ModernEgyptologists. Accompanied with Extensive Chronological andGenealogical Tables, from the Earliest Records to the Present Time; aMap of the Ancients; a Chart of the Course of Empires; and VariousPictorial Illustrations. On a Plan entirely New. Designed for the Useof Universities, Colleges, Academies, Bible Classes, Sabbath Schools,Families, etc. By the Rev. R.C. Shimeall, a Member of the Presbytery ofNew York; Author of an Illuminated Scripture Chart; Dr. Watts'sScripture History, Enlarged; a Treatise on Prayer; etc. New York.Barnes & Burr. 4to. pp. 234. $2.00.

The National Fifth Reader: Containing a Treatise on Elocution;Exercises in Reading and Declamation; with Biographical Sketches andCopious Notes. Adapted to the Use of Students in English and AmericanLiterature. By Richard G. Parker, A.M., and J. Madison Watson. NewYork. Barnes & Burr. 12mo. pp. 600. $1.00.

Popular Music of the Olden Time: A Collection of Ancient Songs,Ballads, and Dance Tunes, Illustrative of the National Music ofEngland. With Short Introductions to the Different Reigns, and Noticesof the Airs from Writers of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.Also a Short Account of the Minstrels. By W. Chappell, F.S.A. The wholeof the Airs harmonized by G.A. Macfarren. In Two Volumes. London:Cramer, Beale, & Chappell. New York. Webb & Allen. 8vo. pp. xx., 822.(Paged as one vol.) $15.75.

The Material Condition of the People of Massachusetts. By Rev. TheodoreParker. Reprinted from the Christian Examiner. Boston. Published by theFraternity. 16mo. paper, pp. 52. 15 cts.

The History of Herodotus. A New English Version, edited with CopiousNotes and Appendices, illustrating the History and Geography ofHerodotus, from the most Recent Sources of Information; and embodyingthe Chief Results, Historical and Ethnographical, which have beenobtained in the Progress of Cuneiform and Hieroglyphical Discovery. ByGeorge Rawlinson, M.A., late Fellow and Tutor of Exeter College,Oxford. Assisted by Col. Sir Henry Rawlinson, K.C.B., and Sir J.G.Wilkinson, F.R.S. In Four Volumes. Vol. III. With Maps andIllustrations. New York. Appleton & Co. 8vo. pp. viii., 463. $2.50.